Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site duke.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxb!mhuxn!mhuxm!mhuxj!houxm!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!mcnc!duke!nlt
From: nlt@duke.UUCP (N. L. Tinkham)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Blast from the past: a net.religion time capsule
Message-ID: <5344@duke.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 31-Jan-85 19:09:17 EST
Article-I.D.: duke.5344
Posted: Thu Jan 31 19:09:17 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 2-Feb-85 14:01:14 EST
Organization: Duke University
Lines: 59

[This line does not exist.]

   I'm going to regret getting into this, but Rich Rosen's article
("Blast from the past...") seems to deserve at least some response.
I agree, basically, with the two conclusions Rich draws at the end
of the article (Did I just say "agree"? Impossible! :-) ), although
I would state differently some of the subpoints of conclusion #2.

[R. Rosen:]
> What conclusions can we draw?  1) We're still arguing about the same things,
> only we've become more entrenched and have better codified our positions with
> cute buzzwords like "wishful thinking".  2) The basis for disagreement
> continues to be the differences in basic assumptions between the two sides;
> neither side seems to really appreciate the fact that the other side makes a
> different set of assumptions than *they* do.  I still contend that religious
> believers are making assumptions based on wishful thinking, that they hold to
> the SAME assumptions that I and others do regarding the world at large, but
> that they add a different set of assumptions for the special case called
> religion.  One witnesses the extreme people like Arndt who scream "This is
> my point of view, it says so in the bible.  See?  What are you going to do
> about it?"  (usually followed by a derogatory insult...)  Do ALL religious
> believers (like Marchionni and Nichols, for example) *assume* that others
> hold to their assumptions regarding religion?  Are they aware of the
> assumptions they are making?  Am I??  I hope this proves to open new fertile
> ground for discussion instead of further entrenchment.

   Conclusion #1 is fairly obvious by this time.  Having read net.religion
for several years now, I find it interesting to watch the cycles:
"Oh, yes, they're starting the {teleological/problem-of-evil/evolution/
homosexuality/validity-of-the-Bible/are-Mormons-Christians/...} argument again."
I suppose philosophers and theologians have been running in these
same little circles for millennia.
   Regarding conclusion #2, arguments between people with widely differing
basic assumptions are fascinating to watch; it's like seeing inhabitants
of two different planets trying to converse.  Which brings me to the
concluding sentences of the paragraph quoted above.  It is easy to assume
others share one's own assumptions if one's conversations on metaphysics
and epistemology take place mainly among those who do share one's beliefs;
most noticeably, this happens when one discusses religion almost solely
at a church (synagogue, meeting-house, etc.) which reflects one's own
religious tradition.  Are we aware of our assumptions?  Sometimes.
Are we aware that some reasonable people make different assumptions?
Only, I think, if we have actually met some of these reasonable-but-different
people (rather than merely having heard their beliefs caricatured).
And that, for me, is one of the values of this newsgroup:  I can
hear people of different beliefs present their ideas in their own words.
It's healthy to be reminded that some intelligent people disagree with me.
   I still disagree with the claim that the only basis or confirmation for
religious assumptions is wishful thinking, but this argument has
*certainly* been argued to death already.  If it's any consolation,
I also disagree with the reverse claim (which I have heard often from
preachers) that non-Christians hold their disbelief solely on the basis
of wishful thinking.

------------------
"Travel broadens the mind."

                                 N. L. Tinkham
                                 duke!nlt